3 ms·
> that doesn't kill kids While the numbers are low, it is not 0. This is, sadly, categorically untrue.
by michaelcampbell 5y ago
> that doesn't kill kids
While the numbers are low, it is not 0. This is, sadly, categorically untrue.
- TurkishPoptart 5y agoIt's a double-digit number among healthy kids nationwide. Fewer than from influenza, peanut allergies, and accidents.
- CountDrewku 5y agoCan you provide an example of a child in that age range dying when without a secondary illness that made them high risk? All the examples I've seen are children with cancer or something else. The percentages still don't pan out to having such massive restrictions on children that young.
- glial 5y agohttps://www.startribune.com/minnesota-reports-third-covid-19-death-of-a-child/600050421/ https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-reports-third-covid-19...
- CountDrewku 5y agoThe title of that article should be enough to let you know how outside the norm that is. Do yourself a favor and look up leading causes of child death.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- glial 5y ago> Can you provide an example
- michaelcampbell 5y ago> Can you provide an example of a child in that age range dying when without a secondary illness that made them high risk? All the examples I've seen are children with cancer or something else. Can you assert that without them getting covid, they would have died as quickly? > The percentages still don't pan out to having such massive restrictions on children that young. Which was never my assertion.
- agensaequivocum 5y agoAll of aspects of life has risk. Saying that covid is dangerous to children is pure fear mongering. Compared to basically everything else, virtually no children have died.
- michaelcampbell 5y agoYes, compared to supernovas nuclear bombs are virtually nothing. I was merely pointing out that "it does not kill kids" is just not true, which it isn't.